I think the problem with Fed and Rafa's records is, they are 2/3 best players of all time in terms of GS's, even Djokovic is up there. They can't all win at once. When you ask how many Wimbledon's would Rafa have won had he not been facing the best grass court player of all time? How many French's would Fed have won had he not been facing the greatest clay court player of all time? Rafa' similarly with Djok and Aus. They for me are far and away the two best in reality.

Fed is always going to have the advantage as his weakest surface only comes round once a year, where Rafa's weakest comes round 50% of the year and the other two are heavily congested which is killing him with his injuries now, it requires a 6 month period of top level tennis.

(Original post by Fizzel)
When you ask how many Wimbledon's would Rafa have won had he not been facing the best grass court player of all time?

Not that many. He lost two finals to Federer, one to Djokovic, only one of those three matches was close. Won two Wimbledons, and aside from those 5 years, I don't think he's even made it to the quarters. His record is so overrated.

How many French's would Fed have won had he not been facing the greatest clay court player of all time?

Almost definitely all of the 4 finals he lost to Nadal, probably the 2005 open too, where he lost to Nadal in the semis iirc.

Fed is top 3 all time on clay (by that I mean Open era/my knowledge ie post 70s), Nadal, Borg and maybe Kuerten are better. Nadal isn't top 5 grass though, where Federer, Sampras, Borg, Becker, McEnroe, and Djokovic will go down greater than him.

Nadal has a lot of wins outside clay against opponents which weren't 100% on the day/at the time. If everyone was 100%, Nadal wouldn't stand a chance on grass against the names I've mentioned, and others. 4 years in a row he's been took out by players outside the top 100, and only this year has it been when he's noticeably declined in the other slams. His success outside of the French has been based more off fitness and athleticism than it has off tennis skills.

Nadal is fine margins from being on 4-5 Wimbledon's, and Fed from being on 5-6 French's. Which would put either well ahead of the likes of Sampras, who also doesn't have a full set, so imo can never be the goat.

Nadal is fine margins from being on 4-5 Wimbledon's, and Fed from being on 5-6 French's. Which would put either well ahead of the likes of Sampras, who also doesn't have a full set, so imo can never be the goat.

You've said that misleadlingly. In an age without Federer on grass, Nadal would be +1 definitely (07), maybe +2 (06).

In an age without Nadal on clay, Federer would be +4, probably +5 (05).

Federer's consistency at the French is unreal. In 2011, post his peak, up against Djokovic on a 40 match year unbeaten streak, he burned him. It was a classic display and just evidence that even someone as good as Novak was playing couldn't mess with Roger on clay.

(Original post by Pimped Butterfly)
You've said that misleadlingly. In an age without Federer on grass, Nadal would be +1 definitely (07), maybe +2 (06).

Which would still take him to 4th on the open Era list with 4 titles. Not to mention that would put him above Sampras and equal Federer (by deduction, although I think it could change Sun) on the all time Slam list.

In an age without Nadal on clay, Federer would be +4, probably +5 (05).

Which would take him to ~3rd on the Open Era list. Outside of just French and Wimbledon, of Fed's 7 finals defeats at GS's, only one has come to someone other than Nadal( Del Po). So without Nadal in the frame he'd be well out in front on the all time list.

The big talking point on the rivalry which is generally considered the greatest of all time will be the head to head, as above. Rafa beat Fed at the peak of his powers in one of the all time great matches, defining point in Rafa's grass legacy. Federer on the other hand only won the French in the year Nadal was eliminated unusually early, and will always be mentioned with Fed's career Slam. Nadal leads their h2d 23-10, and 9-2 in GS, those aren't close numbers so I don't think the case for Rafa not being as good as Fed can be made, its outside their matches which has decided the slam tilt.

Either way, either of their careers will be defined by the other, and the lacking points in their legacy will be always be tapered with the strength of tennis in this era which will include Djokovic too. Hence I think their GS records will always be skewed compared to come from other era's, 3 all time greats active at once.

Federer's consistency at the French is unreal. In 2011, post his peak, up against Djokovic on a 40 match year unbeaten streak, he burned him. It was a classic display and just evidence that even someone as good as Novak was playing couldn't mess with Roger on clay.

Federer's consistency and longevity, probably heavily as a result of his classy and graceful style of player will be what separates the two players, same as Woods-Nicklaus, talent will not be considered the deciding factor. Fed's semi final streak is testament to his consistency both physically and mentally. We'll see with Nadal, if he can come back and win another couple, people will talk about his resilience. He's knees haven't been as much of an issue, although you'd question whether he can play at the intensity needed for top, without them becoming an issue.

(Original post by Depleted)
And begin the Federer/Nadal cockwavers, not too dissimilar to the CR7/Messi fanboys.

Murray got raided man. Federer just killed it on his serve and he's got so much variety in his play. Will hit with slices, forehands/backhand shots, great counter player, good on the return, can play a baseline game but he's not scared of taking his game to the net, while he's not the type to just hit high percentage shots for the most part and will try to kill people. Guys like Murray just tend to stick to a baseline game, force them to one side with repetitive powerful shots then hit it to the other side with power.

Wonder how much adaptation there is required between grass and clay, and which one is more tiring for a player? Guess the ball will bounce slightly differently and you can get better grip when running on clay but no idea why you can't adapt your game to that? Can anybody clarify why clay is so tough for certain players and vice versa?

Also I remember when Djokovic went beast mode around 2011ish and won all the grand slams that year.

(Original post by Depleted)
Fwiw I'm a Nadal fanboy. Federer's astonishing Wimbledon run was probably a little before my time, my tennis memories are Nadal being unbeaten on clay, and he's a fellow leftie.

Was that when he was just facing Roddick and beating him in finals? Remember those.

(Original post by jam277)
Murray got raided man. Federer just killed it on his serve and he's got so much variety in his play. Will hit with slices, forehands/backhand shots, great counter player, good on the return, can play a baseline game but he's not scared of taking his game to the net, while he's not the type to just hit high percentage shots for the most part and will try to kill people. Guys like Murray just tend to stick to a baseline game, force them to one side with repetitive powerful shots then hit it to the other side with power.

Wonder how much adaptation there is required between grass and clay, and which one is more tiring for a player? Guess the ball will bounce slightly differently and you can get better grip when running on clay but no idea why you can't adapt your game to that? Can anybody clarify why clay is so tough for certain players and vice versa?

Also I remember when Djokovic went beast mode around 2011ish and won all the grand slams that year.
Was that when he was just facing Roddick and beating him in finals? Remember those.

French Open he's only even lost once, 9 wins in 10 years is incredible man. Think he beat Federer for 4 years in a row or something, Fed won it then he won another 5 in a row. Crazy. And yeah it was, he's beaten him (Federer has I mean) in 3 Wimbledon finals actually, just checked.